Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 11/14/2002Minutes approved by the Bowl at the7anuary 9, 2003 Meiling FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — November 14, 2002 8- 30 a m. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Peter Bames (221-6760) Chairperson: Steve Remington Phone: (I)223-7138 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday November 14, 2002, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Donahue David Lingle Andy Miscio Steve Remington William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Shannon STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Remington, and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Miscio made a motion to approve the minutes from the September 12, 2002, meeting. Lingle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. APPEAL NO. 2398 — Approved Address: 651 Whedbee Street Petitioner: Stephen Mack ZBA ..ovember 14, 2002 Page 2 Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(D) (1) Background: The variance would reduce the required lot area from 4295 square feet to 4045 square feet in order to correct the lot area variance that was approved on December 31, 2001. That variance authorized the lot area reduction from 5000 square feet to 4295 square feet in order to allow the owner to split the lot that contained the homes at 420 East Laurel Street and 651 Whedbee Street into two separate lots. A 250 square foot surveying error was discovered at the time that the official replat was processed through the City's platting procedure. The proposed lot line that was approved in December 2001, will still be in the same location, so this variance request will not result in anything different from what was originally approved. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The original variance authorized the new lot line to be located 17 feet west of the home at 651 Whedbee Street and 10 feet east of the home at 420 East Laurel Street. This proposed variance will result in the lot line being in the same location as the original variance, so nothing is really changing with respect to this lot. The surveying error was not discovered until recently. The lot will still comply with the two -to -one lot area to floor area ratio that is required in the NCM zone. The proposed location of the lot line as originally intended was to allow adequate distance between the existing buildings and the lot line in order to maintain the location of the natural split in the patio area between the two houses. This variance request will maintain that original intent. Staff Comments: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated that the Board granted a variance last December to allow the property to be split into two platted lots. Barnes noted that in the NCM zoning district, in order to have two single family homes on a lot, 10, 000 square feet of lot area is needed. Barnes stated that this property did not have 10,000 square feet of lot area and that is why the Applicant requested a variance. Barnes stated the Applicant is here to request that the lot square footage be reduced further due to surveying errors. The only change is where the lot line will appear on the plat. The Applicant would like to straighten the lot line out, and maintain the original intent. Barnes reveiwed the emergency ordinance that was approved by City Council in 1993 pertaining to alley houses. Barnes stated when the house was built in the early `90s, a variance was not required because the Applicant only needed 9,000 square feet of lot area. The property had 9,000 square feet of lot area. Barnes noted that when the alley house was built, it was the subject of neighborhood controversy. Z.bA November 14, 2002 Page 3 Barnes referred Boardmembers to the site plans in their packets. The lot line will be in the same location that was orginally approved by the Board. Barnes stated that both properties meet the two -to -one lot to floor area ratio. The December, 2001 variance was approved pursuant to the "equal to or better than" standard. In order to apply this standard, the Board must determine that the proposal as submitted will (1) promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested, and (2) will not be detrimental to the public good. The purpose of the standard — a 5000 square foot lot area per home — is to ensure that the lot size of a lot on which a home is located is adequate to provide important private open space, and to ensure there is a relatively small percentage of the lots in the NCM zone on which a second home can be constructed, thereby preventing the proliferation of "alley houses". On December 13, 2001, the ZBA made the following findings: (1) there was no detriment to the public good since both homes already existed, and (2) the purpose of the standard is promoted equally well since the property is already a legal, nonconforming property, no new homes or buildings are being proposed or allowed by the variance, and the variance would simply draw a line on a piece of paper allowing the two existing homes to exist on different lots. Applicant Participation: Stephen Mack, 420 East Laurel Street, addressed the Board. Mack stated that when he applied for the original variance, the intent was to put the property line ten feet east of 420 East Laurel Street. This allowed a maximum lot size for 651 Whedbee Street, but still left an area for a patio for 420 East Laurel Street. Mack set the lot line at ten feet to give a reasonable amount of a private area between the properties. Mack stated the following surveying errors occurred: (1) two different individuals measuring the property; (2) length of the lot was measured at 195 feet when it was actually 190 feet; and (3) when the surveryors went to correct the measurements, they originally had pulled all the measurements off of the front of the lot (Whedbee Street) and when the new person was assigned to the project, he pulled all of the measurements off of the back of the lot (alley). Applicant Mack noted that he did have a neighborhood petition signed by people in a 150 foot radius from the property, and received 100% support. Miscio asked the Applicant where the five feet came from. The Applicant replied that when the plot was originally submitted, the plot showed that the lot was 195 feet, and the five foot error was on the rear of the lot. The Applicant stated he exceeded the required setback for the end of the lot. Board Discussion: Lingle was in support of the appeal. Remington agreed with Lingle. Remington made a motion to approve appeal number 2398 based on the fact that it is equal to or better than. There is no detriment to the community as it is already exisiting. The Board will not allow more or new buildings on these lands (the code would prevent that), so there is no detriment and it is equal to ZBA—ovember 14, 2002 Page 4 or better than. It promotes the purpose of the standard equal to or better than a proposal that complies since the property is already a legal, non -conforming property. The variance would simply draw a line on a piece of paper allowing these two homes to exist on different legal lots. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Remington, Lingle, Donahue, and Stockover. Nays: None. 4. APPEAL NO.2399 —Approved with conditions. Address: 630 South Howes Street Petitioner: James Beck Zone: CC Section: 3.8.3(1) Background: The variance would allow a home occupation activity to be conducted in a detached building rather than within the home that is on the lot. Specifically, the variance would allow the existing detached garage to be used as a bicycle repair shop, rather than require the shop use to be conducted in the home that is on the front portion of the lot. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The detached building is existing. The home does not have an attached garage. If the garage were attached to the home, then a variance would not be required. This is similar to other properties in the older neighborhoods, wherein similar variances have been approved. Staff Comments Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated the property was close to the CSU campus near Laurel Street. Barnes said the home occupation ordinance does not allow home occupation activities in detached buildings. Barnes noted that the residence does have alley access, and most of the rear of the property is an area for parking. Barnes said it was possible for bicycle repair shops to comply with the requirements of the home occupation ordinance, i.e., no offensive noise, no nuisance activity, and no retail sales. The Applicant would be able to have incidental sales. It is not uncommon for the Board to hear request to allow home occupation activities in existing, detached buildings in the older neighborhoods. This home, like many others in the neighborhood, does not have an attached garage. Residents in newer neighborhoods that do have attached garages can convert the garage to a home occupation area without the need for a variance. The Board has normally used the "hardship" criteria when considering this type of ZhA November 14, 2002 Page 5 variance, finding that the unique situation is that the home does not have an attached garage that can be converted. If the garage were attached, then a variance would not be needed. Applicant Participation: James Beck, 630 South Howes Street, addressed the Board. Applicant stated he felt he could comply with all the home based business laws. Beck felt the home occupation would be suitable with the neighborhood. Miscio asked Applicant Beck if he owned or rented the property. Beck replied that he rented the house. Miscio asked if Beck had any employees. Beck stated no. Beck noted that the owner of the property is aware of his home occupation activity. Miscio asked if any remodeling would have to be done to the garage to accommodate the home occupation activity. Beck said no. Remington asked staff that when the legal notices are sent out, would the landlord have received a notice regarding Applicant Beck's request. Barnes replied that the landlord is on the mailing list. Board Discussion: Miscio was in favor of the appeal, and felt the home occupation activity was compatible with the neighborhood. Remington was also in favor of the appeal, but wanted the Board to place the following conditions on the approval: (1) variance is for the use of a bicycle repair shop, and (2) approval is for Applicant Beck only. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2399 based on the equal to or better than standard. Miscio stated the general purpose of the standard is met by the home occupation activity being compatible with the neighborhood, and there was no detriment to the public good. Miscio stated that the approval had the following restrictions: (1) use is limited to what is existing and any expansion would require another variance request and (2) approval is for Applicant Beck only. Lingle seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Remington, Lingle, Donahue, and Stockover. Nays: None. 5. APPEAL NO.2400 — 3x5 sign approved and 2x4 sign denied Address: 300 East Foothills Pkwy Petitioner: Fast Signs Zone: C - Commercial Section: 3.8.7(G)(6) ZBA ..avember 14, 2002 Page 6 Back round: The variance would allow this property to have two single -face, freestanding signs on the south side of the building. The code allows freestanding signs to be located only along dedicated public streets. The former Foothills Parkway along the south side of this lot was vacated several years ago, therefore there is no longer a public street along the south, on which freestanding signs can be located. Specifically, the variance would allow a single -face, 15 square foot freestanding sign to face on the private drive into the Foothills Mall, (south -facing) and would allow a second single -face, 8 square foot freestanding sign to face into the parking lot (east - facing). Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The fagade of the building is mainly comprised of windows, and the roof will not accommodate signage. Mathews Street is the only location a freestanding sign can be located since that is the only street adjacent to this property. There is another tenant residing on the Mathews Street, west -end of the building. The tenants on the east -side of the building would rather their signage be located next to their unit, and believe that the only feasible alternative is to use freestanding signs due to the design of the building. The signs are located about 80 feet behind the former Foothills Parkway, so they really are not located close to the former street, and really function more as building signs than street signs. Staff Comments: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated the driveway is the former Foothills Parkway. Barnes stated the property was the former place to obtain one's driver license. Barnes noted that when the Foothills Mall was expanded, the property was replatted. When the property was replatted, the Foothills Mall vacated a portion of Monroe (south -side of mall) and a portion of Foothills Parkway (north -side of the mall) was also vacated (from Mathews Street east). Barnes stated the sign code allows properties to have free-standing signs, one per street frontage, and the sign has to be along that street. Since Foothills Parkway is no longer a street, the property is only allowed one free-standing sign, and that has to be along Mathews Street. Barnes said the hardship that has been proposed by the Applicant is that the building fagade is not conducive to placing wall signage on the building because the building is almost all windows. Roof top signs are not allowed. Barnes noted that the signs are already existing (signs were put up prior to obtaining a building permit), and have been placed in the position that the Applicant feels is most practical. Barnes said the other tenant in the building is Centennial Bank. Centennial Bank has solved their signage problem by putting signage on the former clock tower of the building. Lingle asked staff that if Foothills Parkway was still a dedicated street that only one of the free- standing signs would be allowed. Barnes responded that was correct. Lingle then asked if the signs were wall mounted signs, would two wall mounted signs be allowed. Barnes replied that there is no limit to the number of wall signs that are allowed as long as a company does not exceed their sign allowance. Barnes stated the property has 230 square feet of sign allowance, and the Centennial Bank signs are using up 107 square feet of allowed allowance. Barnes stated ZBA November 14, 2002 Page 7 that if the Applicant variance request is granted, there is still approximately 100 square feet of sign allowance left for signage on the building. Remington asked staff if the signs would comply with construction standards if Foothills Parkway were still a dedicated street. Barnes replied yes that the signs comply with the height and setback requirements. Lingle asked if the sign would have to be a monument style sign. Barnes stated the sign would not have to be a monument style sign. Barnes noted that the Applicant is proposing some landscaping underneath the sign. Barnes felt the Applicant should tie the signs into the building. Stockover asked if the Applicant could put their sign on the clock tower below Centennial Bank's sign and comply. Bames said yes. The design of the building does create some difficulties with regards to erecting wall signs. The signs are much closer to the building than to the former street, so no real abuse is occurring. If the Board decides to grant a variance, some consideration to imposing conditions should be given. For example, a condition should be placed on the variance prohibiting the signs from being moved closer to the former street, the variance should be limited to these specific signs, and the one foot of air space below the signs should be filled in with materials that match the building material or with evergreen shrubs planted as a filler. Aonlicant Particination Randy Marshall, owner of Fast Signs, addressed the Board. Marshall noted the confusion of his staff thinking that Foothills Parkway was a designated street and not a private driveway. Marshall stated that the tenant was Specs. Marshall stated the tenant felt it would be confusing to his customers as to where to enter Specs. Marshall noted that the tenant has two signs because one is for identification purposes for the private drive, and the sign on the side that is facing east is to direct Specs customers to where to park. Marshall said the bank requested that Specs direct his customers to park on the east -side of the building. Marshall stated that Specs intends to put flowers around the base of the signs. Lingle asked if the signs were installed without a sign permit. Applicant Marshall stated yes, and explained his staff member's error. Marshall thought that the parking directional sign was okay. Miscio-askedstaff if the directional sign showing where the entrance is had any issues. Barnes stated on -site traffic, directional signs are not regulated if they are no larger than four square feet. The Applicant directional sign is eight square feet. Miscio asked the Applicant if he would have a problem making the sign four square feet. Marshall stated his concerns. Marshall said the signs are not lighted, and therefore not obtrusive. The signs are black and silver to match the tenant's interior theme, the signs are held up by concrete, and a smaller sign might not be seen. Board Discussion: Lingle asked staff if there were conditions in the sign code that would cover removal of non- complying signs, if the Board chose not to approve the appeal. Bames stated that if the variance ZBA ..ovember 14, 2002 Page 8 is not approved, there are requirements in the Sign Code and the Land Use Code that would be in violation. Remington asked staff if the mall vacated Foothills Parkway to increase the square footage of the building. Staff did not have a recollection as to why portions of Foothills Parkway was vacated. There was a discussion held regarding possibilities for the vacation. Stockover did not have a problem with the 3x5 sign because Stockover felt the intent was met. Stockover was not in favor of the smaller parking directional sign. Miscio agreed with Stockover. Miscio asked if Centennial Bank could put up a monument sign. Bames stated not on Foothills Parkway without a variance, although one could be placed on Mathews Street. Applicant Marshall re -addressed the Board, and stated the smaller sign did indicate parking for Specs. Marshall was willing to place an arrow on the sign. Marshall reiterated that Centennial Bank wanted Specs customers to be parking on the east -side, and to not be using the bank's parking. Lingle was not in favor of the appeal, and felt the clock tower could be used as a multi -tenant indicator. Miscio asked Lingle what he would propose for the Applicant to use for identification purposes. Lingle stated the Applicant could use the clock tower, and place window signs. Stockover asked staff if window signs were allowable. Barnes replied that windows signs are allowable. Miscio felt a window sign would be worse aesthetically than having the free-standing signs. Remington stated there were two issues: (1) the Foothills Parkway that has been vacated was a unique situation, and felt it creates a hardship on the property; and (2) even if Foothills Parkway was a dedicated street, the free-standing signs would not comply with the standard. Remington was in favor of conforming signage. Stockover asked if the Board would be allowed to consider the signs separately. Baines replied the Board could consider each sign separately, but not by code section. Stockover felt the Board did not support the smaller directional sign. Miscio stated he was in favor of the smaller directional sign if it were brought into compliance with the code. Applicant Marshall readdressed the Board, and explained the confusion his staff had regarding placing the signs and obtaining the building permit. Marshall stated he intended to obtain a sign permit. Marshall noted that the smaller sign faces a parking lot, and felt it was not obtrusive. Donahue asked if there was any design review for the sign. Barnes stated he did not believe that staff had seen the proposed design until after the signs had been placed. Barnes explained the process of obtaining a sign permit. Donahue felt the sign was not compatible with the building. Stockover asked if the sign would be allowable from a design aspect. Barnes responded the sign complied with the code because of the following: (1) the sign is not on a dedicated street; and (2) the sign exists in the commercial zoning district. Baines noted that the only time the sign code deals with some sort of aesthetic aspect of the sign is if the sign is a monument sign (solid to the ZbA November 14, 2002 Page 9 ground) then the base of the sign has to be of the same color or materials as the building. Free- standing signs do not have the same criteria. Remington felt the issue of the sign permit was a non -issue. Stockover made a motion to approve the 3x5 free-standing sign based on the hardship. Stockover stated that approval of the request was not detrimental to the public good. Stockover said the hardship was the design of the building makes it difficult for the Applicant to place a wall sign, and the unique situation of the former street being vacated. Stockover made a motion to deny the 2x4 sign because it is acting as a directional sign, and the code states the sign can be no larger than four square feet. Miscio seconded the motion. Remington asked Stockover if he wanted to place a condition on the motion regarding the air space underneath the free-standing sign. Remington replied that he did not want to add that condition to his motion. Lingle stated he did not agree with the hardship specifically that of the building design. Applicant Marshall stated the tenant would be hard pressed with the bank to place a sign on the clock tower. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Remington, and Stockover. Nays: Lingle and Donahue. 6. Other Business Barnes reminded the Board that the election of officers should occur next month. Bames reviewed the 2003 work plan. Bames noted the Board will have two vacancies, and new board members will be starting their term at the January meeting. Barnes wanted the Board to set the date for the annual breakfast meeting. There was a discussion held regarding setting the date. The Board agreed on January. The Board reviewed and held a discussion regarding the open meetings memo. Meetin adj ed at 9:55 a.m. lla'- B W--k Steve RerWgt'gp, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator